Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Sources: Pentagon rules shift on women in combat

Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:47 AM EST
politics, us, war, women, at
Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press
Service Women's Action Network executive director Anu Bhagwati says there's no reason that women shouldn't be allowed to serve in all roles in the military, including combat.
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 2 photos
<p>FILE - In this Aug. 10, 2009 file photo, U.S. Marine Sgt. Monica Perez, of San Diego, left, helps Lance Cpl. Mary Shloss of Hammond, Ind. put on her head scarf before heading out on a patrol with Golf Company, 2nd Batallion, 3rd Regiment of the 2nd MEB, 2nd MEF, in the village of Khwaja Jamal in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. Perez and Shloss are members of the Female Engagement Team whose mission is to engage with local Afghan women. On Thursday, Feb. 9, 2012, Pentagon rules will catch up a bit with reality, recommending to Congress that women be formally allowed to serve in more jobs closer to the front lines. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson, File)</p>

FILE - In this Aug. 10, 2009 file photo, U.S. Marine Sgt. Monica Perez, of San Diego, left, helps Lance Cpl. Mary Shloss of Hammond, Ind. put on her head scarf before heading out on a patrol with Golf Company, 2nd Batallion, 3rd Regiment of the 2nd MEB, 2nd MEF, in the village of Khwaja Jamal in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. Perez and Shloss are members of the Female Engagement Team whose mission is to engage with local Afghan women. On Thursday, Feb. 9, 2012, Pentagon rules will catch up a bit with reality, recommending to Congress that women be formally allowed to serve in more jobs closer to the front lines. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson, File)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is unveiling plans Thursday to allow women to serve in thousands of military jobs closer to the front lines, reflecting the realities of the last decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Defense officials say the new rules will still mean that woman are barred from serving as infantry, armor and special operations forces — considered the most dangerous combat jobs. But the changes will open the door for more opportunities and promotions for women by allowing them to perform jobs they are already performing, but in battalions, which are closer to the fighting and once considered too dangerous for women.

A 1994 combat exclusion policy bans women from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. A brigade is roughly 3,500 troops split into several battalions of about 800 soldiers each. Historically, brigades were based farther from the front lines and often include top command and support staff, while the battalions are usually in closer contact with the enemy.

In the past decade, the necessities of war propelled women into jobs such as medics, military police and intelligence officers, and they were sometimes attached — but not formally assigned — to battalions. So while a woman couldn't be assigned as an infantryman in a battalion going out on patrol, she could fly the helicopter supporting the unit, or move in to provide medical aid if troops were injured.

The officials said the new rules will formally allow women to work in those jobs at the battalion level.

"We believe that it's very important to explore ways to offer more opportunities to women in the military," Pentagon press secretary George Little said Thursday. "This review has been thorough and extensive," with input from all branches of the military.

Little said that even after the new policy takes effect, the Pentagon will continue to search for ways to open up additional positions to women in the military.

The latest changes, which open up as many as 14,000 additional jobs for women, would have the greatest effect on the Army and Marine Corps. Those two services ban women from more jobs than the Navy and Air Force do, largely because of the infantry positions.

Defense officials spoke about the report on condition of anonymity because it had not yet been publicly released. The report will be sent to Congress Thursday, and if lawmakers take no action after 30 work days, the policy will take effect.

Though numbers vary by service branch, women make up more than 14 percent of the nation's armed forces — that's roughly 200,000 women in the active duty force of 1.43 million. There long has been opposition to putting them in combat, based on questions of whether women have the necessary strength and stamina, or whether their presence might hurt unit cohesion. There also have been suggestions that the American public would not tolerate large numbers of women coming home from war in body bags.

But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where battlefield lines are scattered and blurred, and insurgents can be around every corner, have made it almost impossible to keep women clear of combat. Some 280,000 women have been sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or to jobs in neighboring nations in support of the wars, roughly 12 percent of all those who have served there. Of the more than 6,300 who have been killed, 144 were women.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis said he doesn't see how the new policy helps the national security of the country.

"This does not dismiss the sexual tension issues, nor does it dismiss the differences physiologically between men and women in terms of cardiovascular fitness," Maginnis said.

The Service Women's Action Network's response was mixed.

"On the plus side, this is a huge step in the right direction," said Anu Bhagwati, former Marine Corps captain and executive director of the network. However, she said it was "extremely disappointing" that the ban would continue on women becoming infantry.

"To continue such a ban is to ignore the talents and leadership that women bring to the military, and it further penalizes servicewomen by denying them the opportunity for future promotions and assignments that are primarily given to personnel from combat arms specialties."

"It's time military leadership establish the same level playing field to qualified women to enter the infantry, special forces and other all-male units," Bhagwati said.

The Pentagon report, which initially was due out last spring, comes nearly a year after an independent panel called for the military to lift its ban on women in combat. The Military Leadership Diversity Commission said the Pentagon should phase in additional career fields and units that women could be assigned to as long as they are qualified.

Prior to these new changes, a woman serving as a communications or intelligence officer could formally be assigned to a brigade, but not to the smaller battalion. The military has gotten around those rules by "attaching" women in those jobs to battalions, which meant they could do the work but not get the credit for being in combat arms.

And since service in combat gives troops an advantage for promotions and job opportunities, it has been more difficult for women to move to the higher ranks.

While the new rules won't open up the Navy SEALs or the Army Delta Force to women, some defense officials have said the military may eventually be open to that. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates told North Carolina ROTC students in 2010 that at some point there would be careful steps in that direction.

Already, however, women are serving with special operations forces in support jobs such as intelligence analysts, legal specialists, builders and administration assistants.

In a new program gaining popularity in Afghanistan, women are serving on so-called cultural support teams that go out with commando units. The women on the teams are used to do things that would be awkward or impossible for their male teammates, such as talking to or frisking burqa-clad women.

___

Associated Press writers Mike Gracia, Pauline Jelinek and Robert Burns in Washington contributed to this report.

___

Follow Lolita C. Baldor on Twitter: http://twitter.com/lbaldor

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Lolita C. Baldor's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (14)
benenloep

This is a well-thought of piece that made it easy for people to understand the whole point.

    Reply#1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:49 AM EST
    follow the money

    Here is someone,

    A combat veteran, yes, a lady,

    Who had both legs blown off, and her right arm shredded, and is fighting for veteran's that are coming back from Afghanistan, Iraq, and fighting for health care, benefits for all of our Americans coming home.

    http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Why-Tammy-Duckworth-Fights-for-Veterans-Video

    Tammy Duckworth. Chopper pilot.

      Reply#2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:55 AM EST
      American Dreams

      Better late then never. Women in uniform have in always been there as support personnel. Since modern warfare has no clear cut battle lines there is no "Front line rear support" like days of yore. How about receiving combat pay like the men? Zen you know anything about that?

        Reply#3 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:09 AM EST
        ol doc gold

        Everyone on the ground in Afghanistan receives the same combat pay, hostile fire/imminent danger

        • 3 votes
        #3.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:00 AM EST
        Reply
        ScreamingForVengeance

        I don't see the problem w/ it.

        Equality is just that.

        However, i'm going to assume that they carry the same amount of equipment, ammunition or what-have-you? If they do not, than I have a problem w/ it.

        Being treated equal is just that and if allowances are made because their women, than I am against this. And the reason is simple.

        The need to continuously resupply them would put alot of other people in danger. And danger in that environment tends to be permanent.....

        • 1 vote
        Reply#4 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:12 AM EST
        LCS

        I am not equal to a woman, and a woman is not equal to me. We are different, in design. I can not bear children, and a woman is'nt as strong, as a man. One is not better than the other. Its like saying apples, and oranges are equal.

        My father worked for the Southern Pacific railroad, his job was getting the trains over Donner Pass. When a train is going up the mountain, they don't want to stop, they want to keep momentum. If they stop the train, once they get it going again, sometimes the knuckles brake, and the knuckles, can weigh up to 400 lbs. To repair, you need the Engineer, Brakeman, Fireman, Conducter.

        Well they hire a woman engineer, and coming up the mountain they had a knuckle break. She weighing 105 lbs, could not help the conducter, fireman, and brakeman. So they had to get another man, to do her job.

        What is next, they want to be a linebacker, for Greenbay. This is only common sense. Woman should not be on the battlefield.

          #4.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 11:39 AM EST
          Reply
          ol doc gold

          my last deployment in Afghanistan, we had an attachment of FET, they went everywhere the battalion went, on convoys, on foot patrols, on assaults, they went to shuras in the villages, they helped with med-caps...

          They got shot at and and returned fire, they were well trained, savvy, and tactical with sound TTP's

          And yes SFV they carried a full combat load.

          They might not be "grunts" but they were treated every bit as an equal as I was...

          • 4 votes
          Reply#5 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:59 AM EST
          American Dreams

          I worked flight-line (Comm/Nav) . Women who do those kind of demanding jobs have to work smarter not harder. A close friend of mine was a Crew Chief . She was all of 5'2" and 115 pounds. She was the first one in my Squadron and at first caught crap left and right because she could not carry all her tool boxes, TOs and manuals, misc. equipment.The male crew chiefs forgot they could not carry it all either. They relied heavily on the the Sq. Ready Wagon to shuttle them and their equipment to the plane.

          She hunted around in the back room of our supply section and found some casters, some heavy angle iron and ply wood. A short time later she had built a dolly to pull all her tools, manuals, parts, etc. Within 3 months nearly everyone built one as a well.

          With proper physical conditioning most women can hump with a full sack as well as men.

          • 4 votes
          Reply#6 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:34 AM EST
          George-369262

          More utter insanity from our PC military...first they don't want to admit what an utter disaster having women in non-traditional roles has been.... and now the officer corp, with ' Diversity ' being the mantra, are loathe to discipline problem military members who are minorities, for fear of career blow-back....

          Check out the current trials of Marines Johns, Orozco, & Jacoby on Oahu, for events in Afghanistan....in short, a problem Marine kept falling asleep on watch, endangering the lives of his entire squad... the officers apparently refused to do anything about the situation. Why ? The problem Marine was Chinese-American, with a congresswoman as an aunt. The other enlisted Marines, desirous of surviving their tour, took matters into their own hands. And now are on trial.

          Sounds very similar to Maj. Hassan, the Ft. Hood shooter. How many times is this being repeated throughout the military ? Except for elite units, such as the SEALs, where combat performance is paramount, combat effectiveness & unit cohesion have seemingly taken a backseat to political correctness.

          • 1 vote
          Reply#7 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:38 AM EST
          Dog_Blue

          Add in the modified (as in reduced) physical and mental rigors at the academies. To be more "diversified". As if our enemies give a crap.

            #7.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 7:30 AM EST
            Reply
            Better Careful

            I don't want to see women in combat. I don't want to see men in combat. No more wars against sovereign nations and people. Enough with American warmongering. Enough with American imperialism. It's past time we are good citizens on this earth.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#8 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:49 PM EST
            American Dreams

            I agree with your comment up to the point you spouted: "Enough with American warmongering. Enough with American imperialism"

            When the UN asked our goverment to become "the World's Police" we began entering into armed combat in many areas around the world. That does not make us warmongering.

            As to your claim of Imperialism I disagree. We are not into empire building.

            Imperialism:

          • belief in empire-building: the policy of extending the rule or influence of a country over other countries or colonies
          • domination by empire: the political, military, or economic domination of one country over another
          • takeover and domination: the extension of power or authority over others in the interests of domination.
            • 1 vote
            #8.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 3:24 PM EST
            Better Careful

            Wars for oil companies and interests are imperialism. Wars to protect markets are imperialism. Wars to install favored dictators are imperialism.

            Granted that the war against the sovereign people of Iraq had a vanity element in it, but it was primarily a war for oil. That is imperialism.

              #8.2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:26 PM EST
              American Dreams

              Sorry but I disagree the war in Iraq was for or still is about oil. If it had been, all their lovely liquid black gold would be in our refineries and our fuel prices would be back to under $2.00 a gallon.

              We repaired much of their oil infrastructure and gave control of it to them years ago. And naturally the opposing sides blow the pipelines up almost as fast as they can restored to operation.

                #8.3 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:20 PM EST
                Reply
                Leave a Comment:
                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                FUN STUFF:
                • Leaderboard |
                • E-Mail Alerts |
                • Top of the Vine |
                • Newsvine Live |
                • Newsvine Archives |
                • The Greenhouse
                COMPANY STUFF:
                • Code of Honor |
                • Company Info |
                • Contact Us |
                • Jobs |
                • User Agreement |
                • Privacy Policy |
                • About our ads
                LEGAL STUFF:
                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com